Slashdot Mirror
Cringely: MS To Hurt Linux Via USB Enhancements
frogspit writes "In this article, Cringely suggests that MS's proposed enhancements to USB to address security issues have the added benefit (for them) of hurting Linux."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Oh, you'll be able to upgrade your 2004 or 2005 PC to Longhorn, but it will never work quite as well as a new 2006 PC actually designed to run the OS. This is called marketing, folks, and it is what keeps us buying new PCs and other electronic devices over and over again.
Nah, they are going to make it move from marketing hype to marketing reality. They want to DRM the OS, the BIOS, and the peripherals so that they can lock out whoever and whatever they want.
They have already made the deals w/Phoenix to make a MSFT certified BIOS that will enable them to not boot "insecure" OSs. They are in talks to get the RIAA to support a format to make CDs unreadable in machines other than those running Windows (I presume this would include insecure versions of Windows as well). They are working to get the MPAA to agree to allow them to distribute movie materials via WMP which will likely lead to DVDs "protected" with MSFT products.
So they aren't just going to have use buying PCs over and over again to keep up with their protection schemes... They are going to have us buying everything over and over again.
As a gentooer, I'm not too concerned. This sounds like a replay of the sender-ID thing. I somehow doubt that manufacturers will gladly adopt this standard. Also, this doesn't make older USB devices stop working. I doubt it will be the end of Linux as we know it. Windows can support or not support whatever they want, it's not going to change Linux.
To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.
Hi there
BAH - Microsoft would never get away with such blatantly anti-competitive, monopolist tactics. I predict the DOJ would be able to stop such activity by 2020 or so...
By which time of course USB will be a distant memory.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Now, before this becomes flooded with people screaming against the latest evilness from MS, I'd like to say that, while I haven't actually seen the lisence, I highly doubt it prohibits someone making an alternative driver for the USB port. Certainly, some bright coders will be working on this. I'm just not seeing this as a major problem for linux, though I do agree that MS does dominate hardware standards.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
There IS a new USB standard in the works and it is at the heart of Microsoft's sudden interest in USB security. Co-developed with Intel, the new USB standard specifically excludes Linux and probably OS X devices as well. I'm told the Intel folks are quite embarrassed about this, but feel powerless to do anything about it.
Links? Can you back this up with any actual facts?
Show me the new published standard that "specifically excludes linux and probably OS/X".
And if he's so sure it specifically excludes Linux, why is he doubtful about OS/X?
I call bullshit and flamebait on this entire article.
MSFT isn't scared of linux on the desktop, they have absolutely no reason to be.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is it bad that after reading this article, my sole reaction was to run through our building yelling "USB belt buckles!!" like some sort of geek version of Paul Revere...
I'm so embarrassed....
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Cringely and his sources seem to believe that Longhorn's USB device restrictions will be based on the concept of "trusted devices", that the hardware itself will have to know whether or not to let the USB host access it.
I don't see it that way. The implementation I envision is a "trusted user" approach, in which it is access rules defined in the computer's operating system that determine how USB devices can be used.
A flag in the Registry for each user. When a USB device is connected, depending on its value, the OS will give the user either full read/write access, read-only access, or no access, and will mount the USB volume accordingly.
Perhaps there are real advantages to the method Cringely believes MS will implement, but I don't see them.
As big as Microsoft is, they can't simply make useless all usb drives out there with a flick of a switch, as the artical sugests.
More likly, Longhorn will by default allow standard behavior from usb devices.
If and only if the administrator of the OS flips a switch will the usb port be (Disabled / Read only / {Custom USB Writeable})
So while they may require a Longhorn only usb drive, in certain scenario's, regular ones should still work in most situations.
This is of course only conjecture, only time will tell for sure what will happen.
...he's the one actually spreading FUD.
Given Microsoft's already tenuous relationship with the Department of Justice's anti-trust division, sure you don't think they would attempt to lock out Linux and OSX do you? They would get the hell sued out of them.
Second, what's to stop Apple or another hardware company from coming up with a different solution to the problem that works with Windows and therefore does not suffer from diminished market application?
Third, and here's where I get crazy, I believe that at some point in the next five years, Microsoft is going to produce Linux software (for crazy reasons that I'll keep to myself until they begin to sound less crazy.)
Loading...
Something that occurred to me....
I remember when everyone said that USB put Linux at a serious disadvantage becuase of driver requirements. In the end, most USB devices work well on Linux and Linux had USB 2.0 support before Windows!
Unless Microsoft wants to patent these USB enhancements we can safely assume that Linux will support these enhancements. Otherwise, it is probably safe to assume that many device manufacturers will not impliment them. Either way, Linux is OK.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I just don't get why USB hard drives are such a security risk. Any employee who wanted to steal a bunch of data is not going to be stopped by this. All he would have to do is open up his computer and borrow the HD for a weekend.
Heck, he could just email the data to himself at home!
And let's be serious, how many employees really have access to valuable and confidential information?!
When I first heard about this alleged security problem I immediately thought, what's Microsoft's real purpose? Cringely might be on the right track.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
No. Someone is pointing out that a convicted monolopist is using their position to change a standard in such a way as to be able to exclude all competition who don't pay a license to Microsoft to implement it.
Since it will probably have a bunch of patent/license encumberance that will have the effect of saying "Microsoft gets to decide who is in the industry" and everyone else can go home.
It will have the rather un-nerving effect that Microsoft can effectively lock out any open source projects from ever speaking to hardware ever again. Wanna reverse engineer the USB to allow for interoperability? Well, if it's encumbered technology reverse engineering would be illegal.
Oh, sorry. Can't afford a new USB device? Bought yours on sale? Well, we have decided that Microsoft gets to be the sole arbiter of what people can do with their devices. Which means you could eventually find scenarios where you don't own your data -- you have a license from Microsoft to give them your data which becomes their property and they get to assign DRM/usage rules to it.
The fact the government isn't really leary about the fact that Microsoft is in effect saying "all your base are belong to us" with how the industry handles hardware.
If Microsoft wants to go to a totally closed shop mentality as far as every single piece of hardware is concerned, they will probably quickly find Apple overtaking them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I expect USB ports to disappear about as fast as 3.5" floppy drives....
One such abuse that I came away with was using your monopoly status to influence other industries. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems to kind of fit as I'm sure other people are writing at this very moment.
I can almost see this initiative getting spat upon basically because one of the brilliant and golden features of USB was the ability to use the device "universally" not only between like computers, but also unlike computers such as Macintosh. If Apple had any say in the development of USB standards, they should be gearing up their legal engines right about now because this "Universal Serial Bus"s claim to fame is now being threatened.
As far as making it also as a "Linux hurter/killer" I'm not quite so sure about that. It seems to me that we can use Windows drivers WITHOUT worrying about patent infringement issues. It is being done with various Wireless cards and stuff, so why not enhance what's already been done and link-n-load the Windows drivers for the new hardware right into our systems? I think this approach barely presents a hiccup for the next few years unless MS rewrites the kernels of every OS they are currently supporting and rumos has it Win98 will be extended due to popular demand AGAIN.
I think a lot can be prevented with protest and also with clear and active development in the area of using Wine and Windows drivers with Linux. They'll see how futile their effort really is and it makes me wonder if they really think this stuff through....
This is all well and good, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. But, it is very likely to happen, given today's reality.
See, XP wasn't as big a success as Microsoft anticipated. Right now, about half the PCs out there are still running older versions of Windows. The majority of those are running Windows 98 (!). The rest of running some form of XP. Yes, half the PCs sounds like a big success, but it doesn't ensure hegemony. No one is going to ship an XP only piece of hardware, today. Tomorrow, possibly.
Keep in mind, also, that this is about three years since XP appeared. Longhorn isn't going to install on any current machines, most likely.
Now, given this statistic, how long is it going to take for Longhorn to get to 50%? You'd best believe that product is going to be shipped, during the Longhorn period, that works on the last two version of Windows, - Win2k and XP. USB device producers aren't going to come up with new models of anything that won't work with the majority of computers out there. Well, maybe Microsoft will.
I'm guessing that it will take at least until 2010 before the majority of PCs have are Longhorn enabled. When that happens, it'll be a the beginning of a problem. Possibly longer if corps go kicking and screaming, which they will.
Non-MS computer enthusiasts/anti-DRM advocates have at least 6 years to get enough alternative desktops out there to prevent this. I hope that the commercial Linux distro makers and Apple are listening. They need market penetration _now_ to prevent eradication later. Or we'll see the end of personal computing as we know it next decade.
Why wasn't this an issue years ago (when data were small) with floppy drives? Couldn't people also burn sensitive data to CDs and take that home? Most PCs and Macs come with CD burning capabilities as a matter of course. Want to get the data offsite? Drop the CD/floppy into the mail and send it.
Then again, maybe USB storage is just that convenient and hard to detect. Still, it seems as though if someone has access to the data and wants to get it offsite, they'll find a way. Maybe USB devices will be the next "microfilm" of future spy/thriller movies.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
1. I won't buy any hardware that hash such encumbrances, as an end-user. ... obviously GWB&cia can come here and "liberate" us from our democratic constitution or protect the rainforest or other gibberish like that, but somehow I hope not.
2. In my country DMCA-style laws won't pass because (a) they would be inconstitutional (b) we would not like them
3. I won't buy any such hardware as a sysadmin because of vendor lock-in and associated costs. I can graft a spreadsheet proving it as a bad business move in 5 minutes. I did it before.
4. People in the USofA may buy stuff again and again but in other, not-so-rich parts of the world, we tend to make our stuff last a little bit more. My government-owned day-work computer is 4 years old and I'll have to cope with it for 2-3 more years. If USB ports were a problem here, they would be disabled in the BIOS and/or soldered.
I probably had more to say, but I'm not feeling very well today.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Look, we can all sit around all day and come up with conspiracy theories about how MS is trying to kill this competitor or that competitor... And some of the time those theories are even going to prove correct because, well, MS *is* exceptionally savy to the point of being bullies and even worse many times... But this article is nothing but FUD from someone on the OSS side of the fence. He might be right in the long-run, but for now it's just a glorified conspiracy theory.
The FUD flows both ways folks, let's not forget that. You think MS is the only one using dirty tricks? The OSS side has a massive contingent of zealots to go along with the truly gifted, intelligent, talented and insightful members of the community, and they many times have a much louder voice than the good ones. MS has plenty of legitimate flaws, but so too does the OSS community. The sooner we all come to that realization, the sooner we might be able to change the world.
This article isn't a good example of fulfilling that goal, indeed it's a good example of what we should be trying to avoid!
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Every TV, 13" or larger, sold in the USA, has a v-chip. It's an FCC regulation and mandate. The vendors don't have a choice about it.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I vote: not so crazy. I am of the opinion (and have been for a couple of years now) that they have a top-secret lab in an underground bunker where they are secretly working on a Windows desktop environment running on a Linux kernel, as well as Linux versions of Office and all their main applications.
Why?
That's what I'd be doing if I were them. They can afford to hedge their bets on this one if they are really as scared as everyone says they are. One of the serious advantages of FOSS platforms is because the up-front costs are so low, you can start development before you decide if you have a product or not.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
This story is ripe with bias. Microsoft isn't stupid or powerful enough to force everyone to abandon all of their USB devices.
That's why neither this nor NGSCP (Palladium) are of any concern.
Everyone wants to FUD about how Microsoft is going to make a BIOS that "locks out linux", or a USB standard that locks out old devices. It's not going to happen. 5 years from now, you're still going to be able to run Linux on your computer, and you're still going to be able to access your USB devices in Longhorn and Linux.
Now, certain devices - music players, primarily, will probably be "secure" (DRM encumbered). But you'll probably still be able to use them in Linux, so long as someone writes the drivers. The new Microsoft USB-spec is just a way for media players to confirm to the OS (and DRM framework) that they will obey the DRM restrictions.
It's pointless to debate this anyway. It hasn't happened yet. Remember back in 2001 when Slashdot was spreading FUD about Palladium? As it turns out, we can still run Linux on our computers, and we will be able to do so for the immediate future.
D...M..C.A...
And copyrights...
Watch, MS will copyright some key element that allows the OS to interface with the USB devices - prohibiting anyone from making compatible software.
On top of that, if you simply bypass their key element - it's copyright circumvention because it bypasses that security check or whatever that MS implemented.
I'm not saying that's the way it's going to be - but it's a possibility.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter what MS tries to do - they're not going to cripple FOSS. The nastier they get, the less people care for their company and products. That means more people to FOSS and other competition - and less political influence for Microsoft to continue out it's battle. (Not that I want to see MS gone, but perhaps when they're not the biggest kid on the playground they'll have to behave themselves a bit more.)
IMHO, i think that manufacturers will just package generic USB drivers with there devices.
I don't think Longhorn will be shipped by 2020.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
True regarding the USB 1.0/2.0 support, but when i read this article i cant help but think about older winmodems. When I first stared using linux (96/97) dialup was my only option and while there were non winmodem modems out there, they were definatly not in my price range.
i think if micro$oft gets these hardware vendors to require proprietary drives like they did with winmodems, then linux could see a serious hurt on the supportability side. At leats at firs, but i never really remember winmodem drivers for linux being any good, others have better experience?
though, when it comes right down to it, i also really doubt microsoft will ever loose support for older versions of USB. While the author of the article states lifespans on USB keyfobs are like 18 mo. i have a 256M that i always keep in my pocket, and unless it breaks, or all the files in the world start becoming > 256M, i really doubt i'll ever get rid of it.
The problem here is that Microsoft is acting on a legitimate and actual problem which gives people headaches in the real world.
d f.)
If they they attempt to implement a longhorn only solution, they will likely get so many people up in arms that it will never happen, and as a result another legitimate problem becomes taboo and remains unsolved.
We've seen this already more than once. Just think about harddisks with built in encryption.
I would LOVE for my bios to ask me for the password to my disk so that if somebody steals my laptop they don't get my data.
(Shameless plug: In particular I would love it if a sensible encryption was used, see http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/bsdcon-03.gbde.paper.p
Unfortunately, Microsoft tried to own the multimedia market by having harddisks with encryption where only _they_ had the keys.
Now nobody even dares discuss the idea and concept of encryption in the harddisk.
One taboo after the other...
Poul-Henning Kamp -- FreeBSD since before it was called that...
Intel recently tried that rambus and failed. Motherboard makers knew their market and went against the leader. MS has tried soundcards and failed. People stuck to creative labs (soundblaster).
MS has tried to flex it muscles often enough and yet it rarely works and seems to be working less and less. Name a big PC company that is not doing linux however small. Do you really think MS likes that Dell ships linux machines?
If MS really had as much muscle as this guy seems to think then we wouldn't have had a fraction of the linux stories that we have had.
So hardware makers have not bowed to MS before (well not always) so why should they with USB? His scenario just doesn't make sense. You see there is the tiny little problem of people not upgrading their OS. Oh I am not talking about the /. people and their like. I am talking about the millions still running windows 98, according to MS own figures.
Say I make a new device and make it a requirement that you first have to upgrade your OS? Oh yeah that would work. Companies don't even like to say "Windows 98 or later" to avoid scaring away the 95 crowd. Exactly how many products do you see that only work with windows XP SP2? Do you remember how long things like joysticks and mice came with both USB and either a PS/2 or a gameport cable?
Also MS can not exclude old devices. If they could they would have ditced ISA support ages ago. They haven't. If longhorn suddenly wouldn't work with your old MP3 player you wouldn't buy a new one, you simply wouldn't upgrade.
What they can do is create a win-usb. Like those win-modems and win-printers that exist. Are they a threath? Well only if you care about the "my crap piece of cheap tech that everybody told me was crap but it was such a deal and now it doesn't work with linux it sucks" people.
If MS really plans to do it they would fail as they have failed as they and others have failed before when trying to control the PC.
The PC is free and there are to many players who have everything to loose by MS or anyone else gaining control.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If there's a new USB standard by Microsoft that's back compatible with everything, one of two things will happen: it will be ignored (ergo, nothing will happen), or it will be adopted, ergo it will be reverse-engineered or otherwise documented, then redeveloped for Linux, then - guess what - included in the Linux USB modules, if not the base kernel itself, probably sprinkled with holy penguin pee within a few hours of the release if the intellect of the Linux dev people is any indication.
Gotta admit, though - Cringely has really outdone himself.
This sig no verb.
I don't think MS has any fear of "getting the hell sued out of them." They can stall the procedings until their move has crushed the competition (see all previous disputes) and then offer a token "We're sorry, we won't crush Netscape again" apology.
Getting sued (and being found to be an illegal monopoly) has hardly slowed Microsoft's tactics.
--Coming up with something clever... please wait...
The DMCA is unconstitutional here in the USA, too, but that hasn't stood in its way. Don't get too smugly complacent. Watch out for the creep of DMCA laws in your own country, and support the development of tech that keeps us free from such laws and these marketing conspiracies.
--
make install -not war
China is supporting the development of a Chinese-centric version of Linux. Assuming it takes off, China carries enough weight in the market-place that there will always be a viable hardware alternative to MS-only devices. Any standard that doesn't support the marketplace in China will die a quiet, unmourned death.
What PC makers (and to a lesser extent device makers) risk with this is irrelevance.
If Microsoft locks in the next motherboard standard, people may stick to the current standard in droves. Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems to me that just about any PC on the market right now is Fast Enough for most everone's daily use. While special purposes (like gaming) need special hardware, there's little reason for the bulk of home or business users to do a performance upgrade on the desktop in the near future. Several companies already thrive on producing processors and machines a generation or two off the leading edge... why would this change?
Several big manufacturers may go along with this, since they need to generate a reason for consumers to upgrade. But not all will, and not all who do will throw out the current open standards.
Cringely's example of IBM and Compaq is a good one. IBM tried to lock in their PC standards while viable alternatives existed, and they got creamed in the marketplace every time. Apple did the same thing, and they got creamed too.
Why should it be different this time? Microsoft could maybe have pulled this off a few years ago, but now all the PC and USB device manufacturers know that viable alteratives to Microsoft Windows exist. (OSX, Linux, BSD.) It's too late.
Surely some manufacturers will place a bet on Microsoft's competitors and support dual or open standards. Those that do may struggle for a time, but they will reap the marketshare reward in the end.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I'm not, in any way, disagreeing with your assessment. But I think what will happen with the public at large is: If the financial burden is light enough, they'll go along with it. Microsoft just needs to find the threshhold of pain the public is willing to withstand and shoot just under it.
IMHO (and this jusy may be because I've got a good paying job) I have no problems paying DishNetwork for their protected access to AV content. How is THAT different from a Microsoft Cartel doing the same thing for the same (or less) money?
Sooner or later, you're going to want to jump over to that processor that's 5 times faster, and the drive that holds a TB or two, or your system will fail and you're stuck buying the stuff whether you want to or not.
It's _kind_ of like the Froenhofer(sp?) MP3 licensing...did you notice it when you bought your mp3 player? I'm fairly certain you DID pay for the priveledge of using mp3s.
As for buying stuff over and over, that's the primary tennet of 'planned obsolecense' economics.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
An "enhancement" could always be included in a service pack to allow DRM CDs on 95,98,etc.
And MSFT knows this would make the original idea worthless. It won't happen. Upgrade or suffer with using old programs.
What about legacy auto/component players?
What about them? You want to listen to the new music then buy a new player. It's not exactly as if your VHS player plays DVDs. Sure, you can get VHS movies currently but I would go out on a limb to suggest that eventually they will be discontinued for DVD and its successors. You can continue to watch your old media no problem but you won't have access to the new features.
Here's to hoping the OpenBIOS project can workaroud some of this junk.
Sure, you can run all the free software in the world on your OpenBIOS computer. You will not be able to watch media, listen to media, surf the net, etc, because everything will require a "trusted" computer.
Yeah, it's paranoid, yeah it's probably unlikely, but this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.
You're sorta both right.
Microsoft has not actually been a TRUE monopoly because it can't use government force to restrict Linux. It has TRIED to be a true monopoly by using restrictive contracts with hardware suppliers which appears to be failing as more and more of them allow Linux to be distributed on their machines - thanks to Microsoft being convicted under the government's definition of monopoly.
HOWEVER, Microsoft with this new scheme IS trying to use government force to support its monopoly position. This is because the new USB devices and software can not legally be reverse-engineered because of the DMCA and because they will patent their new handling of the USB system.
So while Linux is still a competitor to MS, MS is now not only a convicted monopolist according to the government's definition, it is now a monopolist by MY definition.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"... I'm pro-gun and pro-life..."
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
I read the story, but my take on it is this: It's jaded overreaction. My arguments:
Microsoft has historically bent over backwards to make their software backwards compatable. You can run all sorts of outdated hardware on the Windows OS. The only reason that current versions of Windows won't install on a 386 (via software lockout) is because MS doesn't want your computing experience to be ruined because of hardware issues. ("Hey, W2003 is crappy because it runs too slow on this 386!")
Think about it, you still can run crusty old 16 bit apps on windows. Unless they had pressure from customers, why not do away with them, amd make people use software that would be more stable in a modern OS? So, my first point is, MS would get real heat if the tried to aggressively obsolete things. (gad-I just verbs a noun again.)
Second, don't forget that MS lives under the shaddow of the DoJ case. While they got off with a wrist slap, no sane manager at MS (Yes, I know...) is going to suggest a course of action that causes them to tangle with anti-trust issues again. BG has stepped down as #1 cheese. Why would he do that? Because he wants to get back to working with coders? Or, because his leadership style was percieved as too agressive? That is a pretty big step to take unless you REALLY have an issue with leadership.
While MS would like LINUX to go away, they aren't about to do anything that could get them into another round of lawsuits. Litagation is expensive and risky, even to Bill. Most companies with an ounce of brainmatter use it only as a last resort.
The big C writes some interesting stuff, but this strikes me as a little too reactionary. The sky isn't falling on LINUX (yet).
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Although I doubt that Microsoft would want the negative press that surrounds the critical bugs, it does make a convenient way to create forced obsolesence; have a 'vulnerability' that is only discovered after you have EOLed a particular version.
For example, "Gee, you can keep using win95/office97/etc., but we are no longer releasing security updates, so you are likely to get a virus or worm, if you do."
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
The public already puts up with Windows. 95% of average joe users already willingly eat up the crap put in front of them because MS calls it a meal.
The way to stop "trusted computing" is to make Linux easily usable by joe user and then market the shit out of it.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Many companies are really fed up with the way microsoft tries to squeeze every last buck out of them. The problem is, what is the alternative? Microsoft has been smart about using propietary formats for just about anything, so you're stuck with a whole lot of legacy data that will cost endless manhours to convert. If you do decide to switch you need not only replace all of your servers, get new support contracts, retrain your staff, etc.
Point being, many people will put up with this shit because it's just too much effort to choose another way. In fact, there are only 2 defences: people stop buying microsoft or somebody stops microsoft. The latter can only happen at the government/judicial level and we've seen that doesn't do much of anything. The former, well, see above...
Let's see, I believe the Xbox was "locked down" to prevent people from using it as a cheap console-style PC right? And let's all admit that as far as security hardware control goes, it's been a real success.
On a similar note, it seems that Microsoft's record at coming up with and implementing hardware standards is a little spotty at best (think about how well-used uPNP is these days).
My point is that the market will dictate whether or not this becomes widely used - Ma & Pa computer user are not going to be buying a new PC every year just because microsoft says "jump", just as there son and/or daughter will be more than happy to "fix" that old computer to make sure that there usb key fob still works fine.
Whether it's a hardware or software hack, there's always going to be ways around any system such as this, and I have faith that Linux developers will find a [legal] way to address this issue if it comes up. Oh and seriously, some references would be nice when I read this kind of hyperbole. Don't know where he obtained his journalism credentials, but I bet I could get my rocket scientist diploma from the same place with no problems.
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
That old saying applies... Place a frog in boiling water, he will jump out. Place a frog in cool water and slowly raise the temperature, he will cook to death.
Make the change overnight, and people will complain and throw a fit. Over time add a little DRM here, a little more here, require a secure PC for this premium media, then that regular media... Joe Sixpack will be cooked before he knows it.
Unfortunately, there will be so many Sixpacks out there that those of us who see it coming will be treated like Chicken Little until it is too late.
We can spend all day yelling about how evil Microsoft is, we can whine about the future of the industry, and we can shout our declarations that we will never purchase DRM'd material.
It still doesn't change that copyright needs to be fixed.
Microsoft isn't the only evil corporation out there using copyright as a weapon instead of what it was intended to be. We can bat down stuff like Sender ID, heck, we might even get this USB stuff licked, but the abuse is just going to keep coming. Sooner or later there will be too much of it for our protest signs to even make a difference. The real fix to this whole mess is to update copyright law so that it is relevant agin.
I think of it in terms of a continuum. I think it's fairly obvious that a fetus at its due date is a baby--it just needs to get out. What about the day before that?
How about this? Think of a seed that is put in the ground and watered. At what point does it become a "plant" instead of a "seed"? You would apparently say that it is when it shows above the dirt. So the day before that it's not a "plant"? What about two seeds that are planted next to each other at the same time, but one is planted 1 inch deeper than the other? One becomes a plant first because there's a little less dirt over it?
I'm turning off my Karma bonus on this because I just wanted to respond to you, rather than try to make myself heard to everyone. Sorry if this was off the main topic, but it's worth it here.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
WRONG-- the only thing you can't watch will be the media that is controlled by the big corporations
I wish it were that simple, but it can get far worse than you think. Some PC's are already being shipped with Turst chips, and the expectation is that pretty soon every new system will have a Trust chip built in standard. Everyone who replaces an obsolete computer will simply be HANDED a Trusted capable system. After about 4 years practically every PC on the Net will have been replaced. At that point ISP's could quite easily start installing Cisco's announced "Virus Blocking" routers. The way these routers work is that they (1) authenticate that you are running a Trusted machine and (2) use the Trust system to authenticate exactly what software you are running. If you are not running a Trusted system or you are not running exactly the mandated software then this router "quarantines" you, denying you an internet connection. At a Global Tech Summit the president's Cyber Security advisor called on ISP's to plan to do exactly that, to intall exactly this sort of hardware and to make Trusted Computing compliance a MANDATORY requirement for internet access terms of service.
That would be the final nail in the coffin - an internet death sentence if you refuse to submit to Trusted Computing. There will be a million other nails before that, making it almost impossible to function unless you submit. E-mail that will only be readable under Trusted Computing, countless websites only accessible under Trusted Computing, all sorts of software and files that will only be useable under Trusted Computing. It goes way beyond DRM for music and movies. BIOSes being Trusted, USB standards being inherently Trusted, networks being Trusted. They want to make it a mandatory part of every standard. Simply nothing will work unless you submit.
The only way to stop it is if there is a massive public backlash against Trusted Computing.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's not like this is going to just happen unnoticed.
They are already shipping some PC's with an embedded Trust chip. The plan is that soon every single PC will come with a Trust chip as standard hardware. It won't be advertized, they will simply hand it to you when you replace your old machine.
you're assuming the general public is much more sheepish than they actually are. Do you really believe that average joe user is going to put up with this?
Your "average joe" will be given various freebie music or movie disks, maybe in the cerial box, maybe with his Happy Meal, maybe as "bonus tracks" on the Titteny Spears CD he just bought. And when he tries to play it it will give an error message saying he has an old obsolete incompatible computer. Your "average joe" will then go out and but a new compatible "Trusted Media ENHANCED" computer just to make the bloody error messaged go away and to get the damned FREE files to work.
On old normal computers the old files work, but the new files give error messages not working at all.
On new "enhanced" computers all of the old files work and all of the new files work.
That's one of the insidious things about their plan, there is absolutely no reason NOT to have a Trusted computer. The Trusted computer can do everything the old computer can do, and more. As we start seeing more and more Trusted files and Trusted software and Trusted websites and Trusted periferals the old normal machines get more and more locked out of everything. None of the new stuff works on an old normal computer.
Sure Trusted Computing means crippled hardware and crippled software and crippled files, but if you submit to Trusted Computing at least it all works. If you refuse to submit to Trusted Computing then nothing will work at all. Average joe just wants the damn thing to work.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"They would KNOW that DRM isn't normal."
No they won't. They already think it's normal that their brand new super fast computer running WindowsXP won't play some their new CDs. They think that's the way it has to be. They think the CD/DVD drive is not capable of playing audio CDs. Meanwhile that same drive will play the living shit out of that CD under just about any other OS.
They think it's normal that they can watch DVDs on their computer from only one region, or from a few but that it then locks on one region. They think that's right and it's they way it has to be.
They believe it's normal, and that's why companies are getting away with selling absolute bullshit like that to the public.
sigaar
I really wish Apple would develop OSX for PC hardware and sell it. Financial reasons for them NOT doing it aside I think it'd really put a dent in the Microsoft Windows Monopoly.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Most of this discussion seems to be rather U.S.-centric, because that is where Microsoft has its greatest influence. But that influence isn't without bounds. I will accept that there are many (even a majority) of governments that would love to have something like Trusted computing become standard within their own borders., so that they can control what their subjects, ah, citizens do with their computers. However, I absolutely cannot see a nation such as, say, China, accepting a Microsoft developed and mandated security technology. They'll just keep on going the way they're going with Linux, for the time being ... they "Trust" Linux because they can own the code, and would like nothing better than to get rid of all Microsoft products because they can't. I feel pretty much the same way myself, actually, but I live in the U.S. and I have to make a living.
... anything beyond that will require users to accept that they are going to be told that they can't do certain things when they want to. I know too many Joe Averages that will simply return a computer to the store where they bought it if it refuses to play their music or video, whether that media was legitimately acquired or not. Trusted Computing may provide the media companies with an iron-fisted control of what used to be called "personal computing", but any significant exercise of that control will simply alienate their marketplace.
... unless the abovementioned corporate powers get the Feds to make unTrusted computers illegal (a very definite possibility) there will always be companies willing to sell computers on the basis of not being encumbered by useless "Trust". "Having problems playing your media files? Don't let the big boys tell you what you can do with your computer! Buy a PC from TrustNobody, Inc. and do what you want, whenever you want!" Remember where computers aren't made anymore: that's right, the U.S. Yes, we make processors and some chipsets: but motherboards and virtually all prepackaged systems are made overseas, and those guys have no love for Intel, Microsoft, Phoenix, the RIAA/MPAA or the Federal Government. My feeling is that market pressures, left to themselves, would eliminate Microsoft's vision of "Trusted Computing" from ever gaining wide acceptance. Whether the free market will have any say in the matter is up to Congress, but frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to do the right thing. They've disappointed me way too often lately. The Office of Homeland Security will be able to get way too much political mileage from the idea of Trusted Computing as an antiterrorism measure.
Trusted Computing will, no matter how convincing a spin Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA or the government tries to put on it, inconvenience people. Matter of fact, it will piss them off. Another poster commented that it will be accepted because Joe Average doesn't care about the ramifications of TC, he just wants to run his programs and load his files. I tend to disagree: Trusted Computing may make computing more "secure" but it sure as hell won't make it more convenient or easy to use. The most convenient system is one with no security at all
So
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Cute, the perfect change to go back to the good-old days.
We'll build an alternative network on alternative hard/software and have lots of fun. Imagine an internet without al those people that are likely to buy that 'Trusted Computing' thingy. Imagine an internet without al those big cooperations...
The public will get the network it deserves, pity for them. But it won't hurt me that much...